>Given that, why would we expect feminists to be talking about the effect of sexual assault on males?
Because "feminism fights for men too!" is something we hear all the time.
>It's not their responsibility to do so, and I'm absolutely certain that most feminists would not object to male campaign groups which highlight the problem of male sexual assault.
Someone who believes something or another about women's rights, and is statistically more likely to dismiss or suppress any discussion of men's issues.
>men have to deal with the fact that they're more likely to be rasped by another man
Not really.
From a comment below:
One of the studies of the Bureau of Justice data notes that in a certain subset of the data, 46% of the male victims of sexual assault reported a female perpetrator.
54% vs 46% is not much of a difference. And then you have this from the article:
"Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member."
>citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement
>outright fabrication
I provided a link to the source. I recommend you review both it and the hundreds of comments agreeing with it. Most major feminist sites picked up on it at the time as well, and it is also listed as a source on the "geek feminism" wiki.
Men are 77% of the homeless population [1]. This doesn't mean that no women are homeless, just that women are much less likely to end up homeless (presumably as a result of the much greater amount of resources dedicated to disadvantaged women compared to disadvantaged men).
I think it goes without saying that a sick or unemployed man is far less likely to find or keep a girlfriend than a sick or unemployed woman.
I think most couples would be pretty offended if you called the girlfriend a prostitute for letting their boyfriend financially support them.
>Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions.
Women are paid the same as men in studies that control for other variables. I recommend you stop reading "studies" that don't control for things like hours worked and choice of career field.
In fact, single childless women now make more than men in most US metropolitan areas: "Young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively." (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...)
Women have an easier time finding somewhere to stay because they are considered more valuable to society. Men are disposable, which is why far fewer resources are devoted to helping them.
Women also can just get a boyfriend if they lose their job or health and need money; I've seen my female friends do this loads of times, but have yet to see it go the other way. Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
I actually moved from the midwest to NYC for exactly that reason. I can't afford the in state public university in my home state, so I had to move here, as ridiculous as that sounds. Luckily, NYC is not nearly as expensive as people make it out to be. I pay about $200/month more in living expenses, but it's $10,000/year cheaper to go to school here and I get free health care through medicaid (important since I have a very painful health condition). I have no family support, so I have to make it work through, well, work and what little money I can get from federal financial aid.
I'm really grateful CCNY still exists to provide me a path out of poverty. However, they're hiking tuition by $800/year for the next few years, so soon it'll be unaffordable, too...
Well, the most you can take out is $5,500 as an 18 year old. They're more than happy to legally deny you any other loans if you don't have the support of a rich family to cosign some private ones for you.
You need to have the money upfront to pay for the first two years of college, though. You can't use money you won't earn for another two years to pay a tuition bill that's due now.
At the amount I was getting paid in 2007, it would have taken me 33.3 years to save up for the first two years of in state public college.
These easy opportunities aren't really available to my generation. :/ I was born in a poor rural area, and for a while the only job I could find actually paid less than state minimum wage. It's hard to pay rent and buy food on that little income, much less save up funds for an escape to somewhere with a better economy (which I eventually managed, but it took me 7 years).
There's a $57,500 lifetime limit on federal student loans for undergraduates. The people you see on the news complaining about their $200,000 english degree debt are people who have rich family who cosigned a bunch of private loans for them. (And who will make the loan payments when the english graduate inevitably can't.)
With federal loans, you can only take out at most $5,500/year as an 18 year old, which doesn't do a lot. Cost of attendance in my home state is $20,000/year, so that's about 25% of what you need to go.
> The guy's recommendation to "subtract 1000" from whatever your balance is is totally infeasible for a large portion of the population.
I liked how the example used $1000, too. As if poor people even have that much in total. A better example would have been +/- $10, but a lot of people here have absolutely no comprehension of poverty in the US.
...what? The author is a feminist. The whole site is.
From the site's FAQ:
"Feminism and fat acceptance have always been, and will always be at the heart of this blog."
>you're implying that non-feminist women are not afraid of being raped
wat